Best way to better golf. Approach every round like a Stableford?

[Mugs050]

Background: 

I have been thinking about this more and more this year. The last few years I have grinded and strategist my self down to a mid 8 factor. What I have found is that with this way of grinding out holes, it has made my golf play much more conservative. A lot of people are probably saying good, that's course management that's how you shoot lower scores and become a better golfer. But is it really? Sure your right course management will help minimize mistakes and turn triples and doubles into bogeys but does it also cap how low you can truly score? I have been playing for 10 years my best golf round is 77 and my best 9 holes is even par. I feel like when I am on a hot streak that I try to protect my score instead of concentrating on how I got there. This happens to PGA pro's as well so it's quite common. What I really should be doing is finding ways to break out of my plateau and feel comfortable scoring low. 

Theory:

The theory I am trying to implement this year is to approach each round more like a stableford where I am trying accumulate more points or more pars/birdies then worry about my overall score. I feel by playing like this even though it could raise my average score will help me break through my plateau. I will be more comfortable getting double digit pars in a round or having 2-3 birdies, instead of playing scared golfing and protecting a score. As far as my handicap is concern, all things equal I think I would rather be a really good 13-14 handicap then an average 9-10. Once its time for me to move up a weight class I would have dominated my class already. This reinforces not all feeling more comfortable scoring but also more comfortable winning. 

Thoughts? 

[Dinoma]

I willing to be proven wrong, but my money would be if you could go for it and not play to protect scores, then your scores will get better.

[David in FL]

Stableford is nothing more than an alternate method of stroke play scoring.  The only way it really differs is that you're not penalized for any strokes on an individual hole beyond net double bogie.

How does that method of scoring  translate to playing differently?  

[Mugs050]

31 minutes ago, Dinoma said:

I willing to be proven wrong, but my money would be if you could go for it and not play to protect scores, then your scores will get better.

I should add that the idea is not to be reckless as well. For instance in recent years I might have a tight 430 yard par 4. I would proceed to take a 4 to 6 iron and hit the fairway between 200-220 yards. This would then leave me with another 200+ yard shot. I would then from there hit the green maybe 2 out of 10 times but be around the green another 7 times and have 1 time where I would really miss hit the shot. I would then leave my self a chip in which I would say I would get up and down for par 1 out 5 times. I would of protected bogey but virtually eliminated birdie and gave my self a very poor chance at par. Now I am thinking of playing the same hole with let's say a 5 wood which I hit 250-270 and am probably 50% more accurate with then my driver. This would leave me now a 170ish yard shot which I could hit the green probably closer to 4-5 times out of 10. Now I am putting birdie back into play and greatly increasing my odds at par. 

[No Mulligans]

13 minutes ago, David in FL said:

Stableford is nothing more than an alternate method of stroke play scoring.  The only way it really differs is that you're not penalized for any strokes on an individual hole beyond net double bogie.

How does that method of scoring  translate to playing differently?  

Double bogeys, triples and quads are all the same, obviously.  A par is worth twice as much as a bogey, a birdie is worth 1.5 times as much as a par and 3 times a bogey.  As such, the downside risk is smaller and the upside benefit is higher.  One should play more aggressively.

But in support of @David in FL assertion, this change in risk benefit would have very little change in how I approach a hole.  That is because, I don't come across that many decisions where I have the opportunity to play more aggressively than I already do.

[Dinoma]

I'd say I play 'aggressively' if I think that the shot is over a 75% chance of success. I put the quotes around aggressively since in my mind if I've got a 75% chance of success its logical rather than aggressive. 

I think that most people on these forums have agreed that getting nearer to the hole is the most important thing. In my mind looking using that data taking a 6 iron on a 420 par 4 is borderline going to end up costing you a shot on that hole on average. 

[iacas]

@Mugs050, have you bought a copy of LSW? The true secret to shooting consistently low scores is hitting greens, knowing your Shot Zones, GamePlanning properly with Decision Maps, and leaving yourself lots of looks at birdie.

Whether you're trying to "protect" or not is somewhat irrelevant. Over 18 holes, you have to have a strategy to get the ball on the green and give yourself a chance to make some putts. Some days will be better than others, but overall, lower and more consistent scoring results.

I don't think you need to play tricks, and The Rule (in LSW) covers the whole idea of "how conservative or aggressive should I be here?"

[Mugs050]

16 hours ago, iacas said:

@Mugs050, have you bought a copy of LSW? The true secret to shooting consistently low scores is hitting greens, knowing your Shot Zones, GamePlanning properly with Decision Maps, and leaving yourself lots of looks at birdie.

Whether you're trying to "protect" or not is somewhat irrelevant. Over 18 holes, you have to have a strategy to get the ball on the green and give yourself a chance to make some putts. Some days will be better than others, but overall, lower and more consistent scoring results.

I don't think you need to play tricks, and The Rule (in LSW) covers the whole idea of "how conservative or aggressive should I be here?"

You know what I haven't maybe its high time I did. Strategy I believe is important but my theory on the way I am trying to play is more based on getting over mental hurdles then planning my way to attack the course. However they can work hand in hand. 

[9wood]

On April 28, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Mugs050 said:

Background: 

I have been thinking about this more and more this year. The last few years I have grinded and strategist my self down to a mid 8 factor. What I have found is that with this way of grinding out holes, it has made my golf play much more conservative. A lot of people are probably saying good, that's course management that's how you shoot lower scores and become a better golfer. But is it really? Sure your right course management will help minimize mistakes and turn triples and doubles into bogeys but does it also cap how low you can truly score? I have been playing for 10 years my best golf round is 77 and my best 9 holes is even par. I feel like when I am on a hot streak that I try to protect my score instead of concentrating on how I got there. This happens to PGA pro's as well so it's quite common. What I really should be doing is finding ways to break out of my plateau and feel comfortable scoring low. 

Theory:

The theory I am trying to implement this year is to approach each round more like a stableford where I am trying accumulate more points or more pars/birdies then worry about my overall score. I feel by playing like this even though it could raise my average score will help me break through my plateau. I will be more comfortable getting double digit pars in a round or having 2-3 birdies, instead of playing scared golfing and protecting a score. As far as my handicap is concern, all things equal I think I would rather be a really good 13-14 handicap then an average 9-10. Once its time for me to move up a weight class I would have dominated my class already. This reinforces not all feeling more comfortable scoring but also more comfortable winning. 

Thoughts? 

I like this sort of thinking that isn't satisfied with what is and wants to break free into the unknown which could possibly be achieved by not playing the usual safe or conservative game simply to protect a score or HC. Who knows what could be unless a risk is taken. Everything of real value was gotten by someone willing to risk all.